Stuart Varney

And now, as the 2016 presidential campaign consumes its final hours, the evidence of its historic peculiarity becomes unmistakable. Fox News has spent the past year and half trying to package Donald Trump as a reasonable choice to lead the free world. At the same time they have been blistering Hillary Clinton with vicious attacks, many made up out of thin air. But nothing could have prepared us for the segment Monday on Stuart Varney’s Fox Business program.

Varney hosted Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, one of the most wild-eyed, vitriolic members of the Fox Contributor Corps. Peters is notable for his unhinged tirades against America’s bitterest enemy, Barack Hussein Obama. One especially deranged Obama rant (also on Varney’s show) saw Peters become hopelessly overcome with loathing. In mid harangue he blurted out that “This guy is such a total pussy it’s stunning.” That earned him a mild rebuke from the host and a two week suspension.

However, on Monday Peters made a shocking announcement with regard to the presidential election (video below). Despite his radically right-wing views, Peters affirmed that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. Of America! But his endorsement was somewhat, let’s say unconventional:

“I think Hillary Clinton is despicable. She has committed criminal acts. And she’s greedy. She’s corrupt. And yes, I’m going to vote for her. I’m voting for Republicans down the ballot, but I’m voting for Hillary Clinton because it’s a vote against Donald Trump.”

OK, so it’s more of an anti-endorsement of Donald Trump than an endorsement of Clinton. But his explanation of what he finds so objectionable about Trump is worth noting:

“I don’t want Moscow’s man in the White House. I know I could be a lot more popular this morning if I said ‘Trump’s the Messiah, I’m gonna vote for him.’ This is about the future of our country, it is about our security. And here’s a guy who apologizes for everything Vladimir Putin does and makes crazy remarks about NATO, about Syria, about nukes, about the Mosul offensive. And, oh by the way, about foreign trade. Do you want a global recession? Do you want to see your portfolio really tank? Sure, just walk away from all our trade deals.”

Peters’ sacrilege clearly bothered Varney, who made a valiant effort to bring him back into the Fox fold. Varney tried to explain his reasons for being a Trump supporter. Let’s just set aside the impropriety of an alleged “news” anchor announcing that he’s a supporter of a political candidate. His reasons rest on his desire for an economic growth plan that will spur prosperity. So he ought to be supporting Clinton, whose continuation of Obama’s expanding economy, and record eighty consecutive months of job growth, is what he professes to want. Peters responded accordingly by asking with regard to Trump:

“Where is the plan? Show me the plan. Of course we want growth. He is lying to the American people. He is lying to blue collar workers and that is the background I come from. The village blacksmith shop is not coming back. People need skills for the jobs of the future and this cult of Trump is going to lead a lot of places.

“Look, Hillary Clinton’s domestic policies repel me. She is awful, but she is safer for this country’s security than Donald Trump. And I think Vladimir Putin has a deep hold on Trump and we should all be much more alarmed than we are.”

To reiterate, Peters is the guy who thinks Obama is a pussy. But he’s supporting Clinton because she’ll keep us safe and Trump is Putin’s puppet. If it weren’t on video it would be easy to dismiss as a prank or a lost SNL sketch. As it is, it may be the best Clinton endorsement we’re gonna get from a Fox News pundit. And it seems fitting to end the campaign season with an arch-conservative blowhard throwing Trump under the bus and backing up a couple of times to make sure he’s thoroughly flattened.

The video that revealed that Donald Trump is a repulsive, misogynistic, sexual predator has upended his campaign. While many people already knew this, the visual evidence has caused some Republicans (but not nearly enough) to finally accept the obvious and repudiate their nominee. The spectacle of having a major party candidate talk about “grabbing the pussy” of random women at will is as nauseating as it is unprecedented.

For Fox News however, the profane language has been made the focus of their coverage. That isn’t nearly as disgusting as the behavior it described, but it’s Fox’s way of diminishing the episode on Trump’s behalf. The problem for Fox is that even the language was considered indefensible last December when their military analyst, Ralph Peters, used it to insult President Obama. Apparently this language is unacceptable for Fox News, but just fine for the presidency. This is what happened at that time and the punishment dealt out.

December 7, 2015

Foul-Mouthed Fox News Obama-Hater Is Given Time-Out By Puppet/Anchor

The seething hatred of President Obama by Fox News came gushing out this morning by one of the network’s most notorious hatchet men. Lt. Col Ralph Peters (whose name translates to “vomiting penises” in Slanglish) appeared on Stuart Varney’s Fox Business program to discuss/bash Obama’s Oval Office speech on terrorism last night.

Peters was virtually spitting teeth (video below) as he was unable to control his most primitive tendencies. In an otherwise mundane response to Varney’s inquiry as to “What was your commentary as the President’s speech unfolded?” Peters launched into a profane rant that barely addressed anything about the speech itself.

Peters: Well, first of all, he keeps speaking about “We can’t give in to our fears. Don’t be afraid.” Look Mr. President, we’re not afraid. [shouting] We’re angry. We’re pissed off. We’re furious. We want you to react. We want you to do something. You’re afraid. I mean this guy is such a total pussy it’s stunning.

Really? The President who presided over the capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden; who as Commander-in-Chief as ordered more than 8,000 airstrikes against ISIS; whose military missions have dropped more than 20,000 bombs on enemy targets; who has killed thousands of ISIS fighters, including many of its leaders; this president is a pussy? What Peters, and every right-winger, are too ignorant to acknowledge is that Obama has been executing a plan that has had much success. Yet his critics keep blathering about irrelevancies. Is it because he refuses to send more Americans onto a battlefield where they would become sitting ducks for a guerrilla insurgency? Or because he expects the people of the region to take responsibility for the ground war against an enemy that is murdering them?

Peters goes on to lambaste Obama in the fashion that birthers have long used to “otherize” him as an alien creature saying that “The American people, whom he does not know in any sort of intimate manner,” want action. He then rattles off s a series of assertions that the President cares more about our enemies than ourselves. Eventually, Varney steps in to daintily scold Peters for his potty mouth.

Varney: I can tell you are super-angry, and I asked you what your reaction was, but I gotta call you, you can’t use language like that on the program. OK. I’m Sorry.

He’s sorry? What for? Peters comes completely unglued with an offensive rant and Varney apologizes for chastising him, while excusing the outburst due to Peters’ anger. What makes this even more ridiculous is that Varney allows Peters to continue for a bit and then…

Varney: Ralph, I’m sorry. I’ve got to interrupt again. You used some very strong language there about the President of the United States, and I’m the anchor of Varney & Co. and I have to ask you, either you should apologize for that or take it back.

Peters chose only to apologize. But you have to wonder what happened in between Varney’s first redress of the foul language and his subsequent request for an apology. It seems likely that someone in the control room pulling Varney’s strings gave him a directive to force a more formal atonement. While Fox’s audience likely shares Peters’ crude disgust for all things Obama, the network may have to tread lightly so as not to offend their glassy-eyed, Christianist viewers.

For the record, Peters has proven to be one of the most repugnant individuals to ever appear on Fox News (and that’s saying something). The Ralph Peters Story is one of truly nauseating notions that include: advocating military strikes on the American media; that there aren’t enough civilian casualties in war; that the U.S. should be more like ISIS; that the Taliban should have been allowed to execute an American soldier; and many more horrendous pronouncements. Consequently, this frothing tirade is not particularly surprising. And it is typical of the irrational loathing that is broadcast on Fox News every day.

Fox News later issued a press release stating that Peters has been suspended for two weeks due to his “inappropriate and unacceptable” comments.

This is hardly an isolated event. On another occasion Fox News posted an article on their Fox Nation website with the headline “Press Pussies Soft On Obama.” And Donald Trump called Ted Cruz a “pussy” at one of his rallies. But you can count on Fox to adjust their outrage meter so that it goes off the scale when they are afraid of offending their wingnut audience, but barely registers when it might harm their candidate for president. It’s called hypocrisy, and Fox has got it down to a science.

Here’s more evidence that the right is falling into an abyss of desperation. Donald Trump is clinging feverishly to national polls showing him as competitive. Never mind that they have no bearing on who wins presidential elections. It’s the states that deliver electoral votes and the presidency. On that scale Hillary Clinton is way ahead. The Trump camp knows this, though they will spend the next few weeks frantically trying to divert attention from it.

The latest diversions qualify as certifiably insane. Let’s begin with a charge that emanated from the bowels of Alex Jones’ InfoWars. Jones, you will recall, is a Birther, a 9/11 Truther, and believes that the children murdered at Sandy Hook were all actors. This morning he posted a story alleging that Clinton wore an “earbud” during the Commander-in-Chief Forum last night. She was supposedly being coached with answers from unseen aides off stage. The story was picked up and propelled by the Drudge Report and even Fox News who said that:

“[T]he buzz Thursday morning was more about a report claiming Clinton relied on a ‘micro’ earbud as she fielded questions about national security — a claim her campaign vigorously denied.”

Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted“We cant let Hillary get away with wearing an ear piece during tonights Veteran Forum#HillarysEarPiece#NBCNewsForum” And Fox’s Sean Hannity joined in with a post on the subject as well.

There is just one problem with this crackpottery. The video of the event contains numerous shots of both of Clinton’s ears that plainly have nothing in them. The entire fantasy was born from a single video still that had a random reflection. That was sufficient to set the wingnuts to drooling over the discovery of Clinton’s evil plot. But, see? No earbud!

If that wasn’t enough, Fox News sought to invent another fantastical scandal involving Clinton. This one was from the warped imagination of Stuart Varney, anchor of Varney & Company on the Fox Business Network. He introduced a segment that anxiously wondered “Who is Clinton’s ‘mystery man?’” The report featured video of a well-dressed gentleman accompanying Clinton on the campaign trail. Varney asserted that social media was blowing up over who he might be. He expressed skepticism that he might simply be one of Clinton’s Secret Service agents:

“If he’s actually a member of the Secret Service detail guarding Hillary Clinton, why is he touching her, because he did, he came up on the stage the other night and put his arm around her, and then said ‘Keep talking.’ Surely that is not what the secret service is supposed to do is it?”

Varney’s guest was former Secret Service agent and frequent Fox contributor, Dan Bongino. He offered a theory from way out in right field suggesting that the “mystery man” was “responding to the stage when [Clinton] is in what may have been some kind of a medical crisis.” Varney joined in the wild speculation asking “Is he supporting her during a medical crisis?”

Judging from the video that Varney showed, the man was undoubtedly with Clinton’s Secret Service detail. And he and other agents sprung into action when something occurred in the audience. Clinton, the agent, and others on stage were all looking in the same direction into the crowd. No one appeared to be concerned with Clinton’s health by any stretch of the imagination. See for yourself:

By the end of the segment both Varney and Bongino were dismissing the whole thing as a conspiracy theory that they had just debunked. Which was nice of them after having also just invented it and broadcast it to an audience thirsty for scandal. Both surely knew there was nothing to this before they began, but they considered it too juicy not to plant in the minds of gullible Fox viewers.

Expect to see more of these nutcase studies in Clinton intrigue before the election is over. Fox and Trump will surely uncover evidence of Clinton’s involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Not to mention the Hindenburg crash and fake moon landing. This is all they have left since they nominated a narcissistic ignoramus who can’t go twenty minutes without embarrassing himself and his party.

The news from Belgium overnight is a disturbing new chapter in the war against international terrorism. These incidents are too frequent and cause too much misery for the victims and their families, while serving no purpose other than to incite fear. Unfortunately, with news of this nature there also comes the inevitable opportunists who see it as their chance to advance some self-serving agenda. And first in line for that sick exploitation this morning is Fox News and Donald Trump.

The Kurvy Kouch Potatoes at Fox and Friends wasted no time in getting Donald Trump on the phone to offer his uniquely idiotic and wholly vacant opinions on the Brussels tragedy. Yet even in this friendly setting, every time Trump was asked what he would do under these circumstances, he dodged the question entirely and resorted to spinning his dystopian perception of the world as a terrorist infested hell hole. In more than thirteen minutes he didn’t present a single policy proposal to address the problem other than curtailing immigration and building walls. However, he did have delusions about bad guys with fake passports who are coming into our country by the thousands. Add to that his disseminating long-debunked falsehoods about no-go zones in Paris and Brussels, and his general dismissal of all counter-terrorism measures currently in place, and you have a stew of dangerous ignorance seasoned with rancid hatred and buckets of fear.

The exchanges Trump had with his Fox pals were so embarrassingly meaningless that even the hosts seemed to struggle to get Trump say something – anything – intelligible. They tried asking him the same question multiple times to pry an answer out of him, but still failed to do so. That was when they weren’t making fools of themselves by lobbing softballs like when Brian Kilmeade wanted to know if Trump thought his assessment of Brussels was right. Trump answered “Of course I’m right.” Now that’s journalism. And it was quickly followed by Ainsley Earhardt asking Trump to comment as a businessman “because the market are down […] what happens now from a business perspective?” Trump answered “I think this whole thing will get worse as time goes by. It’s being perpetrated now all over the place.”Note: The markets in the U.S. and Europe were mostly up today (Dow, S&P, FTSE, Euronext, CAC, DAX).

That nonsense is just the start of the foray into fiction for which both Fox and Trump are known. At one point Trump bragged that “I’ve been talking about this for a long time, and look at Brussels. Brussels was a beautiful city, a beautiful place with zero crime, and now it’s a disaster city.” Well except for the fact that Brussels not only has had crime, like any other city, but terrorism as well. For instance, in March of 2012, there was an attack on a Shia mosque. In June of 2012, two Belgian police officers were stabbed in a subway station. In May of 2014, a shooter killed four individuals at the Brussels Jewish Museum. But other than that.

Here are a few other choice moments from the Trump interview:

Earhardt: If you were to become president and were in a situation like this, what would you do to protect America?Trump: Well, again, I think I’ve said it. I would close up our borders to people until we figure out what is going on. Look at Brussels, look at Paris, look at so many cities that were great cities.

Since Trump has already said that closing the borders would be among the first things he would do as president, then presumably they would already be closed if a situation like this occurred. So what’s his answer to the question? Close the borders harder? And there was this:

Kilmeade: The key to unwinding the issue is getting the Muslim community to trust us and the government more than they do maybe people in their own community. How do you do that?Trump: Well you need to have, I mean you need to be very vigilant as to who you have and where they’re coming from. You have to look at people and look at their backgrounds so closely. But this is a story that seems to be more and more happening.

Did I miss something? He didn’t address at all the question of how he would get Muslims to trust the government so that they might help to prevent terror attacks. Undaunted, Kilmeade tried again:

Kilmeade: A lot of people listening right now might be misinterpreting your message, in the past and currently, that you have a problem with Muslims. You don’t have a problem with Muslims, in fact you just hired one, Walid Phares, to work for you. So how do you want to win over the trust of the Muslim community who want to be Americans, who are good citizens, and get them to oust the terrorists amongst them? How does Donald Trump do that?Trump: Well that’s one of the things. They’re very untrusting of people other than Muslims. […] That community doesn’t believe in reporting. They know exactly what’s going on and they don’t believe in reporting to the police.

First of all, Walid Phares, a Fox News analyst, is a Christian, not a Muslim. Secondly, it was nice for Kilmeade to answer his own question for Trump on the matter of his “problem with Muslims.” But Trump’s answer once again avoided any response to the question of attaining the trust of Muslims. To the contrary, he just maligned them as willing accomplices to any terrorist act. But Kilmeade was unusually persistent:

Kilmeade: So what’s your message to them?Trump: My message is not to them. My message to us is we better get smart and we better get smart fast.

And that’s the kind of substantive proposal that will surely put an end to terrorism for all time. Why didn’t anyone think of that sooner? A little later Trump did come up with a message for American Muslims:

Trump: My message to them is they have to be more open with police. They have to become part of the community. They have to let people know when they see people making bombs on the first floor of the apartment. They have to let people know. And they don’t do it. And then the bombs go off and the guns go off and everything happens and you have the situation like like you recently had in California. […] In my opinion this is just gonna get worse and worse because we are lax and we are foolish.

Finally, Trump addressed part of the question. He at least acknowledged that there needs to be some measure of trust between citizens and law enforcement. But he still didn’t offer any suggestions for achieving that. So Kilmeade’s colleague Ainsley Earhardt took a shot at it:

Earhardt: How do you penetrate communities like that? How do you make a difference and make change?Trump: It’s not for us to penetrate. It’s for them to penetrate. They have to come to us. You know, we’re not the victims here. We’re acting like it’s our fault. That’s the problem with the liberal policies of this country and this world.

We’re not the victims? Does anyone know what he’s talking about? And his assertion that any penetration must be done by members of the Muslim community is downright ludicrous. It is the job of law enforcement to cultivate relations with the community. Trump thinks we should just hang around and wait until informants feel like coming forward without putting in any effort to encourage it. And then there was this:

Doocy: Let’s say you’re President of the United States today [I’d rather not, actually]. Obviously you would have cracked down on immigration to prevent what you were talking about earlier. What else would you do today?Trump: Well, you know, I guess I would just talk to the people and give them, frankly, a pep talk. You know, we need a pep talk. We need spirit in our country, OK?

I’m not sure I have anything to say about that. Except for: Are people seriously thinking of voting for this imbecile? A PEP talk?! And Trump is just the guy to give one, he’s so positive and inspirational.

To put a rotting, maggot infested cherry on top of all of this, Fox’s Stuart Varney interviewed Trump’s senior policy advisor, Stephen Miller, and asked him a question that makes a mockery of the tragedy in Brussels by shamelessly politicizing it: “We’ve been saying all morning that this makes Trump look good, because he’s addressed the issue of immigration, specifically Muslim immigration. I take it you agree with that?” Good guess, Stu. And thanks for spending the morning telling your dimwitted viewers that a terrorist attack that has taken the lives of at least thirty-one people, with many more injured, is good news for Donald Trump.

Miller began his response by trying to say that political advantage ought not be a part of the discussion, but he ended saying that his candidate, Trump, had a much better take on this than Ted Cruz. Which led Varney to say:

“I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty of you vs. Cruz. I don’t want to do that. This is a solemn day. […] We’ve had an outrage in Europe which will have repercussions on our politics here in America. Stephen, one last question. I take it at the moment Donald Trump is ahead in the polls in Arizona by a substantial amount.”

Did you follow that? First Varney asks a pointedly political question. Then he admonishes his guest for giving a political answer. Then he asks another overtly political question. And with that I have to go lay down. My head is spinning. I’m sure there will be more exploitation of this sad affair as the day goes on. And surely Trump will say some more stupid crap. But I’ve had enough for now. Maybe I need a pep talk.

The seething hatred of President Obama by Fox News came gushing out this morning by one of the network’s most notorious hatchet men. Lt. Col Ralph Peters (whose name translates to “vomiting penises” in Slanglish) appeared on Stuart Varney’s Fox Business program to discuss/bash Obama’s Oval Office speech on terrorism last night.

Peters was virtually spitting teeth (video below) as he was unable to control his most primitive tendencies. In an otherwise mundane response to Varney’s inquiry as to “What was your commentary as the President’s speech unfolded?” Peters launched into a profane rant that barely addressed anything about the speech itself.

Peters: Well, first of all, he keeps speaking about “We can’t give in to our fears. Don’t be afraid.” Look Mr. President, we’re not afraid. [shouting] We’re angry. We’re pissed off. We’re furious. We want you to react. We want you to do something. You’re afraid. I mean this guy is such a total pussy it’s stunning.

Really? The President who presided over the capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden; who as Commander-in-Chief as ordered more than 8,000 airstrikes against ISIS; whose military missions have dropped more than 20,000 bombs on enemy targets; who has killed thousands of ISIS fighters, including many of its leaders; this president is a pussy? What Peters, and every right-winger, are too ignorant to acknowledge is that Obama has been executing a plan that has had much success. Yet his critics keep blathering about irrelevancies. Is it because he refuses to send more Americans onto a battlefield where they would become sitting ducks for a guerrilla insurgency? Or because he expects the people of the region to take responsibility for the ground war against an enemy that is murdering them?

Peters goes on to lambaste Obama in the fashion that birthers have long used to “otherize” him as an alien creature saying that “The American people, whom he does not know in any sort of intimate manner,” want action. He then rattles off s a series of assertions that the President cares more about our enemies than ourselves. Eventually, Varney steps in to daintily scold Peters for his potty mouth.

Varney: I can tell you are super-angry, and I asked you what your reaction was, but I gotta call you, you can’t use language like that on the program. OK. I’m Sorry.

He’s sorry? What for? Peters comes completely unglued with an offensive rant and Varney apologizes for chastising him, while excusing the outburst due to Peters’ anger. What makes this even more ridiculous is that Varney allows Peters to continue for a bit and then…

Varney: Ralph, I’m sorry. I’ve got to interrupt again. You used some very strong language there about the President of the United States, and I’m the anchor of Varney & Co. and I have to ask you, either you should apologize for that or take it back.

Peters chose only to apologize. But you have to wonder what happened in between Varney’s first redress of the foul language and his subsequent request for an apology. It seems likely that someone in the control room pulling Varney’s strings gave him a directive to force a more formal atonement. While Fox’s audience likely shares Peters’ crude disgust for all things Obama, the network may have to tread lightly so as not to offend their glassy-eyed, Christianist viewers.

For the record, Peters has proven to be one of the most repugnant individuals to ever appear on Fox News (and that’s saying something). The Ralph Peters Story is one of truly nauseating notions that include: advocating military strikes on the American media; that there aren’t enough civilian casualties in war; that the U.S. should be more like ISIS; that the Taliban should have been allowed to execute an American soldier; and many more horrendous pronouncements. Consequently, this frothing tirade is not particularly surprising. And it is typical of the irrational loathing that is broadcast on Fox News every day.

[Update:] Fox News has issued a press release stating that Ralph Peters has been suspended for two weeks due to his “inappropriate and unacceptable” comments. Fox also suspended contributor and fill-in cohost on Outnumbered, Stacey Dash, for saying that the President “doesn’t give a shit” about terrorism. It should be noted that these two contributors are often not on the air for two weeks or more, so this “punishment” is purely symbolic.

Also notable is that Fox has not reported the news of these suspensions and they have not posted video of Peters’ appearance on Varney & Co. It’s too bad that Fox will punish people for bad language, but not for bad information. Let’s see if they suspend Donald Trump who has been saying “bullshit” and “chickenshit” in his stump speeches lately.

Culture Warrior Bill O’Reilly is on the warpath again. As usual, the battle lines are drawn around an ego so big it can be seen from space. He devoted a segment of his Friday night program to the “Villains” at Media Matters who he described as “an outrageous propaganda website, a hate site.” An inattentive observer could be forgiven if he thought that O’Reilly was talking about Fox News, which better fits that description.

O’Reilly and his guest, Fox Business Network’s Stuart Varney, lit into Media Matters with a vicious, foaming-at-the-mouth glee. They never actually said what they were so riled up about. Generally such a display of animus is prompted by a critical article or a disparaging public statement. But the furious Foxies didn’t offer a single example of a recent atrocity by Media Matters or any other reason for their drooling disgust. They simply hauled off on a manic rant and demanded that the watchdog group’s tax-exempt status be revoked.

O’Reilly: This is not a group that deserves this tax free status. What can someone do to make the IRS revoke it?Varney: Okay, an individual could file one of these forms with the IRS. It’s form 13909. It’s the tax-exempt organization complaint referral form. Simple form. Fill it out, complain, say what your beef is with Media Matters, and you can complain. That’s how you do it.

See how easy it is? Just say what your beef is. Even though O’Reilly and Stuart weren’t able to, you’ll come up with something. Not that it matters. This is a tactic that Fox News tried four years ago. They made a full court press to enlist their viewers to complain to the IRS about Media Matters. It was promoted for weeks on multiple programs by the network’s biggest names, including Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer, James Rosen, Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, Bernie Goldberg, Keith Ablow, Jon Scott, and of course, O’Reilly. They posted the IRS complaint forms on Fox Nation with instructions that encouraged filers to lie. They even had one of their own contributors, former Bush lawyer C. Boyden Gray, file his own complaint.

After months of this charade the result they achieved was a big fat nothing. It’s not unlike the current investigations in Congress, hyped feverishly by Fox News, over Benghazi, Planned Parenthood, and Hillary Clinton’s email. Every inquiry into these subjects has produced complete vindication for the political targets of Fox and the right, but that hasn’t stopped the persecutors from persisting. So it’s no surprise that O’Reilly would dust off this hoary contrivance to hammer away again at his old enemy.

So why is O’Reilly dredging up this old story, and why now? The answer sneaked in at the closing of the segment as he teased the next segment saying “The Factor Tip of the Day: Attacking Killing Reagan. Wow. Wait til you hear this.” If you were bored enough to wait you would have heard O’Reilly whine about some criticism of his new book “Killing Reagan.”

O’Reilly: “A published report says a group of Reagan loyalists are organizing to attack the book. We know these people. They threatened me and Martin Dugard [the co-author] even before we put the book out.”

Indeed, there was a published report. It appeared in the Washington Examiner and was later reported by Media Matters, which O’Reilly failed to mention for some reason. The report identified several people close to Reagan who dismissed O’Reilly’s book as “garbage” and “total BS.” So obviously Media Matters should have its tax-exempt status revoked.

Did the story in Media Matters spur O’Reilly to suddenly relaunch this campaign against them? Who knows? Media Matters has been a thorn in his side for a long time. Earlier this year they published the ebook “Killing Truth” that detailed many of the lies O’Reilly told about his alleged combat duty. And they are a constant source of irritation to Fox News due to their annoying habit of exposing Fox’s journalistic failures. But the fact that O’Reilly went after them just a few hours after the negative report on his new book was posted suggests that it had something to do with his decision.

For a taste of the insane obsession that Fox News has with trying to politicize the tax-exempt status of Media Matters, watch this 2011 video. And you may also enjoy this one showing the depth of the hatred Fox has for Media Matters.

Last night Jon Stewart delivered a segment that is destined to become classic among the Daily Show archives (video below). The brilliantly produced nine minutes of insight and comedy began with a montage of Fox News squaking heads doing what comes naturally to them: Complaining about President Obama.

On this occasion, the topic of the complaint was that the President did not talk enough about poverty, a subject that Fox News generally regards as a scam run by moochers and Democrats who are either trying to enslave them or are fishing for their votes. But since Fox’s mission is to denigrate Obama at all times, when he talks about poverty he is pandering and when he doesn’t he is heartless and hypocritical.

It quickly became apparent that Fox must have been watching a different President Obama than the the one that inhabits reality. Stewart noticed that divergence saying that Obama has indeed “been addressing those issues his entire presidency,” and that Fox ignored that fact in favor of obsessing over Obama making an unarguably true observation about Fox.

“Yep, just like college students at a four hour commencement, Fox basically paid no attention until they heard their own names. It turns out at one point during this incredibly thoughtful and productive session on poverty, the President made the easily provable and decidedly true point that the Fox News narrative is that poverty is not a function of economic condition, but of character.”

“If you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu, they will find folks who make ME mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like ‘I don’t wanna work. I just want a free Obamaphone.’ And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical, who’s raising a couple of kids, and is doing everything right, but still can’t pay the bills.”

Stewart accurately noted that the President has a “remarkably firm grasp” on the Fox business model and mocked Fox anchor Stuart Varney’s assertion that they are “honest messengers.” He then laid into what he called a “rich buffet of bullshit” when Varney claimed that Fox never characterized the poor as lazy. What followed was another montage of Fox News callously demonizing the poor in direct contradiction of what they had just claimed.

This caused Stewart to wonder “How fucking removed from reality” is Fox of their own coverage. That is, I assume a rhetorical question. Obviously Fox does not factor reality into their coverage from the outset. Otherwise, how could people like Varney say that the poor “have a richness of things, what they lack is a richness of spirit,” in one breath, and then pretend that he would never say such a thing in the next? Stewart’s response…

“Are these glaring contradictions a product of lack of self-awareness, or cynicism, or stupidity, or evil? I don’t know anymore, and I’m starting to lack a richness of fucks.”

It is easy to understand the sense of exasperation that Fox’s hypocrisy can incite. But the truth is that they have been doing this for years. Take for example this account of how the poor just have things way too good; or this one; or this one. And the funny thing is that all three of those stem from the same source that Fox keeps recycling for years on end. It’s a mantra that surely brings them the inner peace of a Bizarro World Buddha who lusts for ever more material possessions, while condemning anyone who is struggling to survive for wanting just the bare necessities of life.

OK, just about anyone with a functioning brain already knows that Fox News is a biased player working on behalf of the GOP. But their analysis of financial matters and stock market activity is not just biased, but astonishingly stupid. Yesterday on Fox Nation they posted this “news” item: Romney Rally? Stocks Close Higher One Day After Debate.

Any time someone makes projections based on a single day of activity it is regarded by professionals as naivete and/or ignorance. So it goes without saying that Fox did just that. On the Fox Business Network, Stuart Varney dropped this mind-numbing stupidity: “Some will say this is a Romney Rally.” And Fox’s Lou Dobbs said “This is the beginning of what will be an even bigger Romney rally as the days unfold.”

Of course, any credible economist knows that market activity is based on a variety of financial data. Yesterday there was an abundance of factors to which the market’s movement could be attributed, including better than expected economic data and the European Central Bank’s freeze on interest rates at 0.75 percent.

Fox has a long history of making idiotic assessments of the stock market. In May of 2009, Brenda Buttner gushed, “Call it a tea party rally. Wall Street’s sure partying, up six weeks in a row.” In September of 2011, Fox Nation reported “Stocks Tumble Worldwide After Obama Speech.” Then in June of 2012, they fantasized that “Stock Market Drops After Obamacare Upheld.”

This tendency of the right to misinterpret all market activity as being the result of Obama (if stocks go down) or some conservative (if stocks go up), extends all the way back to Rush Limbaugh’s nutty commentary on February 8,2009, a mere two weeks after Obama’s inauguration, when he said “The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen. Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come.” Since then stocks have died to the tune of doubling from about 6,600 to over 13,500. Nice call, Rush.

Even Mitt Romney got into it a few days ago saying that “If it looks like I’m going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president’s going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. […] Without actually doing anything, we’ll actually get a boost in the economy.” Romney, who considers himself an expert in finance, thinks the markets will advance by doing nothing. His magical name alone will rescue the economy.

A couple of months ago Fox News CEO Roger Ailes told the Daily Beast that his network was undergoing an editorial realignment that he called a “course correction.” The implication was that Fox would cease to be the fiercely partisan propaganda outlet for which it has become so well known.

Well, that didn’t last long.

This morning Fox Business Network anchor Stuart Varney appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio program and candidly announced his political biases while discussing the upcoming presidential election:

“We must win. I say ‘We’ – I’m a conservative, I’m a Republican. I say we must win”

Varney went on to declare that if Obama is reelected the country will be bankrupt in four years. Of course, Hannity agreed with everything Varney said. This is a pretty good example of the actual course that Fox intends to pursue. And the political beneficiaries of Fox’s agenda know full well what they can expect from their favorite network. Mitt Romney was interviewed by Neil Cavuto yesterday and testified on behalf of the network saying…

“I’ll be on Fox a lot, because you guys matter when it comes to Republican primary voters.”

Indeed they do. In just the past two months since the alleged course correction, Fox News has hosted Liz Cheney to accuse Obama of wanting the economy to fail. They invited Victoria Jackson to present her shrill theory that Obama is a communist. They have relentlessly broadcast numerous phony stories in an effort to tarnish the administration (i.e. fast and furious, climate researcher’s emails, a Christmas tree tax, etc.) And they have gone out of their way to misrepresent Obama’s public remarks, such as the fuss they made out of his using the word “lazy.” This week Fox didn’t even bother to broadcast all of Obama’s major economic speech in Kansas. They cut away from the speech about half way through in order to air an interview with GOP loser Michele Bachmann.

So if anyone has fallen for the fairy tale that Fox is moderating their extremist right-wing activism, they clearly are not paying attention to the barrage of hostility that continues to emanate from Murdoch’s media. The Fox empire has never been more offensive and unethical, even when they still had Glenn Beck’s ravings blasting the airwaves. If they have made any course correction at all, it is further to the right and in support of the GOP primary candidates. And given the sorry nature of that bunch, you would think that they’ve suffered enough embarrassment for the remainder of this year and next.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote that Megyn Kelly was arguably as bad as her Fox News colleague Glenn Beck. Today she added weight to that theory.

In a discussion with Stuart Varney, Kelly introduced the results of a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll to argue that Democrats are defying the will of the people by advocating the expiration of Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. Kelly displayed this graphic from the poll:

In her discussion with Varney, both of them asserted that these poll results revealed the public’s opposition to letting the the tax cuts expire. However, the poll actually says the exact opposite. While 44% did say to keep all the tax cuts, a plurality of respondents (50%) said to let them expire either entirely (14%) or at least for those earning more than $250,000 (36%). So, contrary to Kelly’s distortion of the facts, respondents actually favor taxing the rich more by a 6 point margin.

Kelly was forced to mischaracterize the results of this poll even though Fox News made a valiant effort to skew the poll in order to return numbers that favored her bias. The question asked (pdf) by the pollsters inquired as to whether the respondent would…

1. Continue the tax cuts for everyone.

2. Continue the tax cuts for everyone except families earning more than $250,000 dollars a year.

3. Allow the tax cuts to expire and let taxes go back up to their previous level.

The first problem with this construction is that it divides, and thus dilutes, the responses of those favoring expiration of the tax cuts. But more egregious is the phrasing. The first two choices offer options to “continue the tax cuts.” The third option inexplicably changes to allowing the tax cuts “to expire” and prejudicially adds “let taxes go back up.” A fair and balanced poll would have maintained a consistent tone and left out the commentary.

Of course, we know that Fox News has never really been interested in fairness or balance. But no matter how often I see it, it is still astonishing to watch these propagandists assert conclusions that are diametrically opposed to reality, even when the truth is right there on their own screen.